November 22, 2006
Mahmood the AtheistReligion
Mahmood Farooqui is among the bloggers signed on to a new group blog project called Kafila, which I discovered via DesiPundit. (Other names on the roster include Shivam Vij, the omnipresent progressive blogger/journalist, and Nivedita Menon, a well-known, Delhi-based academic).
For his first post at Kafila, Farooqui reprints an essay he had published in Tehelka, on the uncomfortable position he finds himself in as a secular — indeed, atheist — Muslim intellectual in today’s India. The place to start might be where he lays his cards on the table:
Let me explain my locus. I am an atheist, I follow none of the Islamic taboos, but I live in a locality in the capital that can only be called a ghetto. I lived here for five years, when I was a student, when I was very self-consciously opposed to the Indian Muslim stereotype. I had grown up on Chandamama and Nandan, Holi was my favourite festival, Karna my hero, Shiva the great God, Hinduism a highly tolerant religion and I had dreams of attaining martyrdom fighting Pakistan. I was studying history and detested medieval Muslim rulers; I would expatiate on the reasons why Islam had trouble with modernity; I admired Naipaul and Rushdie; supported Mushirul Hasan during the Satanic Verses controversy a novel I deeply admire in spite of its undoubted blasphemies and I detested many things about Indian Muslims, except, predictably, Urdu literature and Sufism. I was, in short, a model Hinduised-Indian-Muslim, who always put India before Islam. I was desperate to leave Okhla. (link)
Okhla is a predominantly Muslim suburb (slum?) in south Delhi; Mahmood Farooqui has written a little more about life there in this article.
Tellingly, Farooqui had trouble leaving Okhla for Delhi’s posher (predominantly Hindu/Sikh) neighborhoods:
But I am now back in Okhla, arguing simultaneously for the legitimacy of difference and the fact of a universal human. Between the self-hatred of my youth and the current uneasiness with my earlier positions lies, possibly, a series of adult defeats perhaps they have dulled my passions and my hatreds. However now I have, you could say, chosen to live here, after a series of eliminations Defence Colony, Greater Kailash-I, Jangpura on grounds of my being Muslim and/or not having a company lease. But, crucially, I came here because I was sickened by South Delhi and because I was incipiently aware of Okhlas hospitableness. (link)
When he says “eliminations,” he means he was denied a lease — at least some of the time — because of his Muslim name. What happens to Farooqui as he tries to leave Okhla is a reflection of the double-bind he faces as he tries to balance his social identiy and background with a self-critical attachment to the idea of modern India as a nation. He fits in uneasily in Okhla, surrounded by conservative Muslim neighbors. But mainstream society isn’t very encouraging, and as a result the pull of his social loyalites remains alive:
More than this, however, my views, in conformity with the rest of the academic world, about the virtues of egalitarianism, liberty and a democratic welfare state are now far less uncomplicated than they were in my youth. I still search for vestiges of the narrative of liberty in Islamic pasts, I continue to valourise streams of pluralism in Muslim sultanates and extol those Indian Muslims of the past who were ecumenical and tolerant. I would still challenge descriptions of the medieval past that underline forced conversions or bemoan the second-class treatment of Hindus. If I do not have much truck with Islam, why then do I continue to search for narratives of tolerance in the Islamic past? Why do I smart when Vajpayee says that there is trouble and violence wherever Muslims live? Why is my attitude to Islam so defensive? (link)
In this essay (you should really read the whole thing), Farooqui doesn’t really come upon any answers to the double-bind he faces, but it is a remarkably forthright and careful attempt to articulate the problem of minority belonging — which isn’t so different from minority belonging in other national contexts.
More Mahmood Farooqui links:
Amit Varma’s post on a controversy regarding a possible instance of plagiarism in a book review Farooqui wrote
Dastan Goi, the lost art of storytelling
amardeep on November 22, 2006 09:43 AM in Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Thanks for introducing us to Kafila, Amardeep. Some solid stuff there. Besides, group blogs are the best!
Thank you Amardeep for the link. That'll make for some good reading tomorrow!
Friend of mine introduced me to it a few days ago - fantastic stuff. Model blog.
One of my uncles tried to rent an apartment in a very posh South Delhi neighborhood. He met with the landlord, had tea and biscuits, discussed the weather, politics, discussed my uncle's business etc. and verbally agreed on the lease terms. When my Uncle got up, shook hands and gave the landlord his first name (very muslim sounding first name as compared to his last name which the landlord was aware of already and was not Muslim sounding-it was turkish)the landlord on hearing the full name asked my Uncle whether he was Muslim. My uncle said yes and the landlord apologized and told him that he could not rent out the place to my uncle because he was a Muslim.
I can't think of any big city in India which doesn't have religion based ghetto-ization or for that matter region based ghetto-ization (Delhi was always divided as kalkaji and chittranjan park for the Bongs, RK Puram for the madarasis etc etc). It all seems to go back to the idea of Indian mosaic of religions and cultures vs. a melting pot like the US. While it would seem like a bad thing to be divided up like that, I always knew where to go for good rosogollas when I lived in Delhi! I wonder if that works for fried chicken in the US...
In America we have the exact same thing. They are called Co-ops and they exist in all the best neighborhoods in Manhattan, where a bunch of upper class WASPs evaluate every applicant on terms of "suitability" (code: white and rich).
Mujahid - Mahmoud's and your Uncle's experiences are not unique. It is not just Delhi but most major cities in India, even Mumbai where there are a lot of muslims, that this goes on.
I was expated in Mumbai for 6 months and with a halfie name (muslim-hindu luve marriage parents), the utter disbelief in some ppl's faces on hearing my name was worthy of a Punk'd moment.
I have never understood the deep seated mis-trust between the two when every day ppl flock to multiplexes to see a muslim star playing a hindu punjabi doing what they do best. I think post Babri Masjid, Bombay and Gujarat riots and communal strife announcing itself as regularly and surely as a woman's period, things are very different now. It is as browns and the rest of the US keep saying, that life changed after 9-11 in this country. So is the case in India. Life has never been the same after Babri Masjid.
So you have muslims cheering louder than hindus when Tendulkar is batting and hindus doing the same when Pathan bowls, flaunting their secular stripes but the hollowness of it all is not lost on anyone.
Desis born into hindu families in the US but are atheist or agnostic still feel conflicted and hurt when they are proselytized to and feel like they must stick up for Hinduism even though they are not practicing Hindus. This is similar to the confusion that Mahmoud talks about. The emotion evoked is not one of religious freedom but more of personal/cultural identity and a sense of belonging. Not a day goes by when on some Indian blog someone says, why don't they go back to Pakistan. These are not rare cases but happen at disturbingly frequent intervals. This is usually balanced by seculars adding that muslims own the country too and they are Indian but the damage is done.
"Despite all my rage, I'm still just a rat in a cage" - Pumpkins
I think that sums up what a lot of urban muslims feel (and I am focusing on them because no one ever tells a Hindu Indian in India to go back home). You may insulate yourself from all of these things through education and money (whether muslim or hindu), but when you are caught at the wrong place at the wrong time, whether the Sameer in your name is Hindu or Muslim will mean life and death. All it takes is one instance of seeing a mob rush past you, to relinquish your cherished ideals.
I am sharing some of my personal experiences here not to make a point, but to help others understand what it feels like to be the other, which in some way or form, most ppl on this blog have.
Well said, Delirium tremens.
Sad but true. The neighborhood that I grew up in Mumbai does not allow Muslims either. It's not going to change soon :(
Oh, and as a side note, I'm gonna be in Kolkata, Mumbai and Bengaluru over the next 5 weeks. Anyone up for a meetup? Shoot me an email...
sad.
that is there, this is here. in the USA self redefinition is possible. the main reason my handle on SM has "the atheist" in it is that i don't want to be assumed to be a muslim simply because of my name. this happened multiple times before spring of 2005 when i affected the name change. since being a presence on the web i have had multiple instances of atheist hindu acquaintances & friend referring to me as a 'muslim,' and i've objected every time (jews have a tendency of doing this too). just because one conceives of one's own religion as defined by a particular set of parameters (an ethno-cultural identity) does not mean others need to conform to this (i also believe in the right of other atheists defining themselves as 'muslim,' or homosexuals defining themselves as 'muslim.' i don't personally 'get it,' but i'm not them).
on a personal note, sometimes when i am a road warrior and i check into a brown owned motel it is interesting to see the expression on the owner's face. they are often piqued with interest when they see my face, but when i give my name they tend to get a bit cooler (on average).
p.s. ironically note. conservative christians often assume that i am muslim by my appearance. when i explain i am an atheist, they totally take this to heart and don't ever thing of me as muslim. for them, being an atheist is even worse :)
Oh jeez...you forgot to include "white, brown and rich" in that mix. Having gone thru the process myself and getting very close to being on the board as well I respect it. Unless you are ready to offer up your first born you cannot be allowed to be part of the corporation.
Delirium tremes,
Well put. I do not think that there is an easy solution. However, money and education can help as you also said.
Now my question to commenters who currently live in India.
There is a huge, huge condo boom in urban India, run by corporations. There are condos in Delhi that have appreciated 10X in a year once Dell started building their office next door. Do they also discriminate? I am not surprised by an individual landlord, sad but true.
Based on what he is writing, he sounds nothing like an Athiest. He sounds like a real secular activist. He is a counterpart to a non practising indifferent hindu. Give him sometime to get back into the fold of 'a' religion :)
People act mighty brave when they:
a) Get a little drink in their belly
b) Log on w/ an alias
This is not such a bad thing. This way you know where the douchebags stand.
Just look at all the bright bloggers defending Michael Richards.
Things are different now. Politicians now feel that they can't win everybody's votes. So they focus on specific demographic groups. The BJP focusses on the Hindus. The Ramadosses (father and son) focus on the Vanniyar caste of Tamil Nadu. The Yadavs (Mulayam Singh and Lalu Prasad) focus on---you guessed it---the Yadav caste of the Gangetic plains. Mayawati focusses on UP Dalits. They form coalitions, because no one can win single-handedly.
Politicians don't need to build credibility by promoting narratives of tolerance in this sort of situation. Blaming the Muslims is how the BJP runs its election campaign. Promising reservation is how the Ramadosses run their election campaigns. Blaming higher castes is how the Yadavs runs their election campaigns. As to Mayawati, she began by blaming all the non-Dalit castes. Now, however, she tells the Brahmins and the Thakurs, "The Yadavs have become the 800-pound gorilla of the Gangetic plains. Why don't we unite to be a check and a balance on them?" So she just blames the Yadavs now, not the Brahmins or the Thakurs.
So much for politicians. What about the intellectuals? The intellectuals are busy intellectualizing this kind of demography-based politics. Read the op-ed articles of any newspaper today. What is their tone? Blame Christian evangelists! Blame Muslim mullahs! Blame higher-caste Hindus! We are the victims! You are the oppressor! Be ashamed of your ancestors! Be ashamed of your culture. Be ashamed of your religion!
Macaulay prescribed a currculum in which Hindus and Muslims where ashamed of their culture. Nehru kept up this shame. So did Romila Thapar. Arun Shourie helped the Hindus overcome this shame, but he was very hard on the Muslims and the Christians.
Well, no wonder Farooqui cannot keep his sanity.
well, reading the thread, that individual is clearly culturally identified with islamic history & heritage and what not. perhaps that's just how one must be in india. i don't know. i don't feel any need to make apologia for islamic history and culture any more than i do for the relatively recent hindu history and culture in my family's background. but different circumstances and viewpoints.
While I dont deny that many people flatly refuse to rent houses to muslims, I must add that MOST of them do so not because they are muslims, but due to the fact that they would cook non-veg food, including beef. I know dozens of families that come in this category. Marwadis and Southie brahmins would refuse leasing their houses to muslims, christians and even their brahmin bretheren from Bongol. So, it isnt as bad as it is made to sound in these "intellectual" essays.
What is the actual difference? How does the reason behind the discrimination make any difference to the person trying to get a room? It's still discrimination.
Technically speaking, it does make a difference, as it is, in such a case, discrimination against non-vegetarians, and not against muslims.
What is the actual difference? How does the reason behind the discrimination make any difference to the person trying to get a room? It's still discrimination.
Yes. It is discrimination. A much more benign one though compared to racial or religious ones. Some people are appalled at the mere thought of blood, flesh and bones in a kitchen. Hence, they prefer renting their houses to veggies. I dont think there is anything wrong with this practice.
not all discrimination is created equal. as a young man i see plenty of "seeking female roommates" adverts (this might not technically be legal from what i hear, but it is pretty ubiquitous). on the other hand, i don't see "seeking white roommates" adverts.
South Delhi is mainly Hindu/Sikh Punjabi, many partition families, not all vegetarian by any means. I think its a flimsy excuse.
This was an excellent article. I think we are all aware of the complicated relationship between culture and religion but Farooqui does a brilliant job of articulating what happens when you attempt to put one before the other (nationalism above religious principles, or lack thereof) and realize that you can't. The two are inextricably linked together and while you may try and identify more with culture than religion it's just not possible. Farooqui argues this in the context of his community, while I can empathize with his same points from within my context of being an American-Muslim. Or Muslim-American. Both, but never one or the other.
Not a day goes by when on some Indian blog someone says, why don't they go back to Pakistan.
They did not come from Pakistan to go back there.
The two are inextricably linked together and while you may try and identify more with culture than religion it's just not possible.
perhaps you should speak for yourself? some people i know assert they can do it successfully.
specifically, there is a long tradition of 'cultural' judaism or catholicism. there are hindus, muslims, shintoists, etc. i've met who make cultural assertions. your flat out contention is falsified by these individuals. it might be hard, or it might differ across social contexts, but it is possible. it might be impossible to be a 'cultural' muslim in saudi arabia, or india, but it is probably far easier in sweden, or the USA.
"What is the actual difference? How does the reason behind the discrimination make any difference to the person trying to get a room? It's still discrimination."
but in india some forms of discrimination are ok and legal, such as parsi-only or christian-only (that too by denomination) or veggie-only (hindu) housing.
----#17 Kush,
If I understand correctly, the condo boom in delhi and other cities is due to consrtuction corporates, but the actual sale/lease/rent is done by invidual landlords so no respite.
A Hindu would not be able to live in one of the muslim housing colonies either. Like someone mentioned in the thread, politics is demographic and it is far easier to get votes playing this angle than it is through development cos if you promise development, you have to deliver and if you don't you will be voted out of power.
Amardeep - Thanks. This is a great find.
Delirium tremens and others - just wondering how many "halfies" are out there? I don't mean to take such an obvious tangent, but I am just so curious being a Hindu-Muslim mix myself. Would love to hear about that experience. I haven't been denied any leases living in America, but I do know that I do not quite fit in with many groups. Most notably, my Dad is Muslim Gujarati and very often people have said "Well how can you be Gujrati? Your Muslim?" Of course, to my mind Gujarat is a state not a religion....
Since I am not a practicing Muslim, but more of a cultural one I do not quite fit in with that group either.
It is an interesting lens through which "halfies" view the whole Hindu-Muslim thing. I never quite grasped the extent of racism amongst US-based Indians until I got married to a Hindu. It is really so sad and bizarre how certain Muslim Indians are elevated and revered but the community as a whole is shunned. How does that happen?
sorry about all the typos - I'd like to blame it on my rush to get out for thanksgiving if that is okay :)
They do make cultural assertations but my point is that their assertations are tainted in part by their religious views. It doesn't matter what religion/lack thereof but it will affect a person's social constructs and basic cultural mores. After all, the idea of religion that a person practices/does not practice was in some way shaped to be what it is through careful considerations in which culture (be it related to background, history, science) undoubtedly played a role.
I agree that there may be varying levels of cultural/religious identity based on your location, but it is certainly not impossible to be a 'cultural' anything in a specific place such as Saudi, where they try and restrict religious viewpoints other than Islam. This has been proven to me by Christian friends in Saudi who do not broadcast their religion however still celebrate and practice within their own home.
As always, I do. My statements are not meant to be blanket generalizations, I'm sorry if you interpreted it to be that way.
----Ek Aurat
In cities like Mumbai and B'lore, there are a lot of halfies (atleast more so than the US). It is hard to spot some because if they don't have obviously mixed names, one wouldn't know. In the US, it has not had any effect on me as I didn't have brown friends growing up as my parents had a rather interesting group of friends. Some may be familiar with the word h-i-p-p-i-e. For some reason though, my parents would love it if I came home with a good Indian *boy* of any stripe.
They do make cultural assertations but my point is that their assertations are tainted in part by their religious views. It doesn't matter what religion/lack thereof but it will affect a person's social constructs and basic cultural mores. After all, the idea of religion that a person practices/does not practice was in some way shaped to be what it is through careful considerations in which culture (be it related to background, history, science) undoubtedly played a role.
by this logic though cultural background matters too. well, many muslims in the USA (and hindus) were raised in a christian social matrix. does this effect their religious outlook? i believe it does (e.g., hindus seem more likely to make the assertion than hinduism is monotheistic, muslims are more arminian).
In Northern Ireland, when someone claimed to be an atheist, the locals would ask "But are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?"
I never quite grasped the extent of racism amongst US-based Indians until I got married to a Hindu. It is really so sad and bizarre how certain Muslim Indians are elevated and revered but the community as a whole is shunned. How does that happen?
it can go the other way too. e.g., a muslim woman who marries a hindu man in the bangladeshi american community...lots of whispers and dirty looks (especially since the children were being raised hindu of course).
Yes, I believe it does affect a person's perception on their own religious views, through understanding the inherent similarities and differences. However this is complimented by a constant cultural struggle of placing oneself in the context of a "christian social matrix" and not being truly christian, but affected by it nonetheless.
Had to laugh at that one. Gotta love N. Ireland for throwing politics into the mix as well.
I've seen the kind of discrimination that goes on while renting out houses in India. This is mostly limited to certain localities within a city.
I'm afraid that you're wrong. The actaul lease/rent is not done by individual landlords...its the agencies that do it. They're willing to sell it to anyone who comes up with money.
MOST of them do so not because they are muslims, but due to the fact that they would cook non-veg food
I see the capitalized most. Still one counter-example - my parents in west bengal. They cook fish every day, chicken and goat meat at least twice a week and are open to eating beef as well. But they have never rented the house to a muslim and never will. Not that they are particularly religious. They are not atheists like I am - indifferent is probably the right category. From my experiences in West Bengal, food habit is a convenient excuse most of the time - divisions are deeper than that.
ek aurat
This is not that uncommon in the social mileu I grew up in Bombay. Many of my friends and family have married inter religiously .But even in such marriages the wife usually has to convert or at least the kids have to 'pick a side'.
In Bombay, Bohris/ Khojas have a high profile and are quite wel known for being both Gujju and Muslim. I don't think you would have got this question in Bombay.I've noticed most ABDs are not aware of the level of diversity in India.
When I was looking for a studio apartment in Boston, I met a middle-aged couple (white) who were planning to rent out a portion of their house. They flatly refused to rent me the studio...citing that I will cook (curry)! I assured them that I won't cook anything at all...but they didn't budge. I've heard a lot of such stories ..mostly with white middle aged couples.
The very next day, I met another couple who were ready to bend over backwards and lease the apartment to a "nice Indian". They apparently had a very favourable opinion about Indians..."nice, mannered and helpful".
Yes, I've heard about this happening a number of times, though luckily it never happened to me. As with the veg/non-veg excuse in the Indian case, it makes you wonder whether the food smell was the real reason, or an alibi for a deeply felt xenophobic/racist hostility.
Luckily, for every "they all smell like curry" person there is an "Indians pay the rent on time, don't play loud music, and don't get in trouble with the law" person to balance it out. Model minority, zindabad.
P.G.Wodehouse, great comment! (and great books too!)
But how much of a narrative of tolerance was there really, before Independence?
There were well established -- and stoked -- divisions between the Hindu, Muslim,
and the Dalit community leaders even around that time. During the partition riots
millions were killed, manu thousands of Dalits converted to Buddhism.
Ultimately, a narrative of tolerance can never precede a narrative of stake in the system.
The British played on Muslim and Dalit fears of reduced stakes in any post-independence system.
And now, the leaders of various sections play on the fears of the resp. sections of having
their extant stakes reduced.
Economics is said to be the dismal science, but frankly, I can see no other way
of distributing stakes in the "system" throughout the peoples, other than a robust decade
of growth -- only this can pave way for a narrative of tolerance.
The progressive agenda in countries like India should be aligned with economic
reforms, quite sadly though it is the opposite.
Delirium,
I was talking about condos built by companies, like JP Constructions, etc. They are wholly owned by companies, and they lease/ and sell them. They are entirely a business enterprise. Now days, they are biggest constructor in town be it Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore. I just wanted to know their dynamics.
Ek Aurat,
I personally know a few Hindu-Muslim mix, including extended family.
You will be surprised that in villages, religion changes with the drop of hat, and sometimes, the mixes just mesh in without any open call for allegiance. A little trivia that actress Meena Kumari was closely related to Rabindra Nath Tagore
That would explain the bad poetry ;) .
A lot of S. Delhi residences are owned by Punjabi Hindu & Sikh folk. Either they or their parents were born in
Pakistan and resettled in Delhi. A fictional account of this human tragedy and, it's social impact can be found
in "Train to Pakistan".
I am surprised this has not come up yet.
#42 I've noticed most ABDs are not aware of the level of diversity in India.
um are most FOB's even aware of the level of diversity in India (ie yellow skinned desis in the northeast)?
especially the average, poor, uneducated one(aka the kind that doesn't generally post blog comments.) also haven't I heard situations of people with christian names having indians (i guess natives) questioning if they were Indian or not.
especially the average, poor, uneducated one
You will surprised how much they know just by observing life, watching movies, meeting people. Don't be condescending them
Now regarding western Christian names, anyone who has seen Amar, Akbar, Anthony or Albert Pinto Ko Kussa Ku Hatta Hai will know. AAA is a milestone in Indian psyche. Every Ramu knows Helen.
Now with Mongoloid features in NE India, just walk in any big town in India.
can't speak for all, but i had guys and gals from the NE in my college... yes we I am well aware of the 'yellow skinned desis' as you so crudely put it...
its never been FOBs beating the 'brown' drum, its always ABCDs ...we beat the 'We are all Indian anti-brown anti-SA drum remember ?
man, this is FOB-ABCD flame war 101...
hmm..i should know..never happended to me in india, happens all the time here...most ABDs have no idea about Indian chrsitians....neither do most americans for that matter..
haha I know yellow is crude. How about Indians who resemble
East asians in appearance? Hmm what about Madrasis being used as a term for all south indians? or is that mainly prejudice. there' sother stuff of course. the sikh jokes are kind of annoying, especially since they are pretty much one of the most prosperous groups in India to my knowledge and are probably disproportionately represented in many important spheres. hehe I'm just an abd not plugged in to either the ABD or Indian born community. I'm just shooting off some observations gathered from online browsing. btw what are the most common Austo-Asiatic languages spoken in India? I could of course look it up.
And how many Muslim localities in India are going to let Hindus in?
To Razib the atheist, comment#37 "it can go the other way too. e.g., a muslim woman who marries a hindu man in the bangladeshi american community...lots of whispers and dirty looks (especially since the children were being raised hindu of course)."
In my experience most kids are raised under the mom's religion because she's the one who's taking care of them most of the time. I know tons of half white/ half indian or pakistani kids, with all the dad's being the indian or pakistani, and all the kids are either christian or just don't have religion in their life.
how ?
In my experience most kids are raised under the mom's religion because she's the one who's taking care of them most of the time. I know tons of half white/ half indian or pakistani kids, with all the dad's being the indian or pakistani, and all the kids are either christian or just don't have religion in their life.
this tends to be true in the USA (see kosmin's american religious identification survey). less so in other countries. muslims bar females from marrying non-muslims cuz they believe that religion is passed through the father.
Builder, would you rather get the apartment or not? Would you rather face discrimination or not?
In an ideal world, people would understand us as we are. It's not an ideal world, however, so I'm willing to accept accidental and misdirected blessings -- since I'm anyway the victim of misdirected hostility often enough.
this sort of stuff really pisses me off - in my opinion, if this guys feel this way, leave india - he would be better off, and frankly india would be too - your muslim brothers are getting f*ed everywhere, be glad that you can live a better life in india
putting india before islam? the two are completely different things, and the fact that this guys even thinks about these two in the same line is sad
the BJP is not a radical hindu party, and anyone who dares thinks this is an ingrate - ofcourse, they support the hindutva movement, but by no means are they radical in their means unlike some other political parties in india
there are many mulsims who are ardent supporters of BJP and share the common vision of their brethren
and regarding vajpayee... the man is the greatest visionary and leader india has seen yet
Sena x, I don't know if it's really worth replying to your comments, since they've always seemed unreasonable to me before. But here goes:
You're clearly misinterpreting Farooqui. His point here is, he wants to leave Okhla, and live in a mixed or mainstream community like Defence Colony. He's hoping to join that mainstream, and live a normal life surrounded by tolerant people. Your attitude to his desire for tolerance is, by contrast, intolerant: if he says he's a "Hinduised-Indian-Muslim," he should just leave.
No, they are not two different things, and you know that. The standard charge against the Muslim minority from those on the right is, they're unpatriotic, they're rooting for Pakistan & the terrorists, etc. Indian Muslims have always been challenged, especially by chauvinists, to prove their loyalty. This writer is coming forward directly and stating that loyalty, as well as his frustration that it doesn't seem to make any difference in terms of actually getting access to the privileges enjoyed by others.
Amardeep,
There are, in the author's words, two kinds of Muslims. The nationalistic ones and the communalists. The writer himself made the statement that suggests that the only good Indian Muslim is a Hinduized one. He used to be one of those. He is not anymore. At one stage in his life he put India before Islam. He now suggests he does not do that. Setting aside the chest beating of the sainik, that was what I read from those statements.
I may have misread some of the nuance in the article by Farood. I got got a little lost in there.
I messed up the author's name, Farooqui. Sorry.
JayV -- I don't think you got it.
Between the Scylla of disaffection can an Indian Muslim be unmoved by the condition of Muslims and the Charybdis of the illegitimacy of communitarian posturing, hangs the fate of the modern, secular Muslim
Clearly more than 2 categories.
Enough of the Muslim sob stories.. not just muslims, as someone already pointed out.. try getting an apartment for rent for a non-vegetarian in a vegetarian complex in India.. it is close to impossible..
But I do enjoy the irony of folks who migrate to the west (predominantly upper caste vegetarians) from India getting the same treatment from whites (for spicy cooking..) :-)
you are right
why is that you dont here these "charges" against the sikhs,jains, and christians in the indian armed forces? so long as there are the likes of SIMI, Tableeghi Jamaat, and mullahs in india who daily deliver propaganda speeches about creating a separate muslim identity and so long as they continue to bicker about minor things such as the vande mataram being hindu, this is a healthy distrust and one that is essential for india
the only real answer for mahmood and all other moderate muslims is to be the voice of change
SenaX:
You got to be kidding me. Do you have any statistics to back that?
Most migrants to the west are probably so-called "upper-caste" but I don't know if the majority are vegetarians. Even many of the 2nd gen Jains I know in America eat meat (and drink alcohol). In terms of the 1st gen, definitely a lot of the Gujjus and South Indians are vegetarian (even there a lot of the men will eat meat outside the home), but probably only a minority of the North Indians are veggie.
Big up peace between the two Punjabs
Mahmood touches on the feeling of many people torn between the clash of ideologies, what he says can be applied to anyone trying to navigate current conflicts without resorting to becoming mired in a seige mentality where one is forced to pick a side. Peace to the soul rebel brother
You got to be kidding me. Do you have any statistics to back that?
Not to endorse the sentiments by SenaX. There are few BJP leaders who are Muslims: Sikandar Bakht, Raj Babbar (he is currently not a formal member of BJP). Here is an interesting article.
Also I don't know that its useful solely as an example of "minority belonging" although it does seem to apply there. I think it applies more to those who wish to live in pluralistic societies. Members of "majority" communities it seems to me would feel many of the same consequences. I think we should move away from the paradigm by which "we" as desis are a minority population. In a globalized world, every ethnic identity is a "minority" in a way, and also part of a "majority". Unless you identify as an ethnic group without a regional base. But even then, within a certain sphere, every Other is an Essential. I think thats one reason 1st generation people adjust well often; they don't percieve themselves as an Other because they have a memory of being Essential. The second generation sometimes forgets that and succumbs to a feeling of being a permanent Other.
Wakan Tanka bless
Kush - there's a very negligible number of Muslims in the BJP, and all five of them are or have been in prominent positions or spokespersons, like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Shahnawaz Hussain and Sikandar Bakht. If you look at the religious and caste breakdown of BJP party members and candidates, Muslims are also a teeny teeny percentage there, much lower than in other parties; ditto for breakdown of those who vote for the BJP. Looks like the strategy of putting Muslims in visible positions is working, though, if folks are getting the impression that they draw Muslim members in any significant way.
And Raj Babbar was Samajwadi Party, last I heard.
The BJP just did very well the UP municipal elections, winning 8/12 mayoral posts. When asked about her party's lukewarm performance, Mayavati quipped "Muslims vote for 'hardliners', what do you expect?" or some such thing. The Samajwadi party has got to be the most appeasing party in India. Look at the behavior of one of its Muslim ministers right after the Danish cartoon controversy. I hope they take a good whipping in the assembly elections.
And Raj Babbar was Samajwadi Party, last I heard.
He got suspended from Samajwadi Party, and is....
Sure, BJP's slice within Muslims is very tiny but not completely non-existent.
Isn't Raj Babbar a Sikh? ???
Not to endorse the sentiments by SenaX. There are few BJP leaders who are Muslims: Sikandar Bakht, Raj Babbar (he is currently not a formal member of BJP). Here is an interesting article.
Can someone please post exit poll numbers (from a recent election) so we can get a better picture of Muslim support for the BJP.
Regarding mongoloid features in NE....
HAHA some one here just had problem with use of Negro by an economist.
But such features known as pahadi in hindi are seen allover the foothils of himalayas
so thats not just the NE.
Kashmir,Himachal,kumaon,uttaranchal,UP,Bihar,Bengal, also have a lot of folks with such features.
They are seen in many groups such as Jats and Rajpoots(many rajpoots married into other rajpoots
and nepalis make a good section of rajpoots).
Look at features of Subhash Chandra Bose\'s Granddaughter.
Some tribals from SE india also have features that they can be mistaken for filipinos.
also tidbid there is a group of malays in SriLanka...
Interesting thing to note is an ethnic group in india is allways alleging central asian roots in a glorified vain way.
But visualy they look nothing like that....I will check out what spencer wells journey of man had to say on that....
I dont think it had much to say on that.
Also Raj Babbar is not a sikh I do know that for a fact
Isn't Raj Babbar a Sikh? ???
He might be of mixed religion heritage, primarily a Jat.
I think he might have technically declared himself a Muslim when he had two wives: Nadira Babbar, and Smita Patil. Something like Dharmendra.
The Samajwadi party has got to be the most appeasing party in India
Hardly needs to be said, but appealing to the interests of Indian Muslims is not 'appeasement' -- it's responsive politics. Indian Muslims are Indians, not India's enemy.
It looks like Farooqui is going through a phase of getting back to his roots and I think that is something a lot of us can identify with. Muslims get challenged in terms of identity in India quite often, and I sympathize with his position very much. I read two of his articles, and I found this line of his interesting :
I was, in short, a model Hinduised-Indian-Muslim, who always put India before Islam.
It is not easy for me to think about how it might be to actually be Muslim in India. I went to a bunch of schools in India, and had a lot of Muslim friends. I didn't really think about their being Muslim very much in the beginning. Like, remember Anwar in Tinkle? It didn't even occur to me that Anwar was Muslim until I had been reading it for many years. I think it is just like that for many Indians. Even after I did realize it, it never really occurred to me to characterize their beliefs as "Hinduised-Indian-Muslim". I have always thought of it as a case of modernized Islam (just as there is modernized Hinduism as opposed to Hinduism from the 14th century). Not that certain concessions, even economic ones, to Hinduism are not being made, but it would be interesting to know in what way such concessions are being made.
Perhaps other people might want to clarify with their own views on the matter. It seems to me so far that the big part of it is a move towards modernism and moderation. This is not to point fingers. I think that a big part of the solution to religious extremism, whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian, is religious moderation and Enlightenment values, and I hope that this question will be taken in that spirit.
Comments about Raj Babbar are truly hilarious. Raj Babbar - a Muslim, a Sikh, a BJP-ite. Well, well!
Raj Babbar is a Punjabi Hindu married to a Muslim Nadira Zaheer (daughter of Sajjad Zaheer of IPTA) and also illegally(?) married to the late Smita Patil by whom he had a son. Raj Babbar has never been a member of the BJP. He is opposed to the BJP ideology. He was with the Samajvadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav till he was thrown out and is now with the former Prime Minister of India, VP Singh, under a new political tag - Lok Janashakti Party - which seems to be in a state of desperate wilderness. Despite Kush Tandon's surmise about his conversion, Raj Babbar did not convert to Islam.
As for the Muslims in the BJP - Sikander Bakht is no longer alive. The only two leaders of any consequence are Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Shahnawaz Hussain and enjoy absolutely no support amongst the Muslim community of India. They are the Hindu-Muslims - a sumpsumptive concept that Guru Golwalker - the RSS ideologue - had propounded in his infamous "Bunch of Thoughts".
Correction: Sajjad Zaheer of IPTA should read as Sajjad Zaheer of PWA.
SP has a formidable presence in my home state (UP). They are often seen as "Muslim appeasers" primarily due to their one-on-one battle with BJP ('Hindu appeasers'). During the Babri Masjid demolition, BJP gained a lot of ground in UP (esp amongst hindutva minded folks) and exploited the religion card. Mulayam Singh Yadav saw this opportunity to rally for the OBCs (esp. Yadav clan) and Muslims.
There are a lot or urban/semi-urban centers in UP which have a big Muslim base (Lucknow, Aligarh, Meerut, Mirzapur etc). In-spite of that, many people (mostly Muslims) in these places have repeatedly voted for "better" candidates (eg. Atal Behari Vaajpayee has been representing Lucknow for the last 15 years). SP's tactics have yielded better returns in rural areas.
The only two leaders of any consequence are Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Shahnawaz Hussain and enjoy absolutely no support amongst the Muslim community of India.
From what I can tell, you are right on the mark.
There are a lot or urban/semi-urban centers in UP which have a big Muslim base (Lucknow, Aligarh, Meerut, Mirzapur etc). In-spite of that, many people (mostly Muslims) in these places have repeatedly voted for "better" candidates (eg. Atal Behari Vaajpayee has been representing Lucknow for the last 15 years).
brown_fov: Without exit poll numbers, I am not sure if we can accept as fact the assertion that a lot of Muslims vote/have voted for Vajpayee.
Muslims dont constitute more than 25% of the electorate in Lucknow so Vajpayee can very well win comfortable majorities without getting any significant percentage of Muslim votes. Also Vajpayee was always considered a 'moderate' in the BJP so that might have something to do with Muslims voting for him.
Anyway, here some are exit poll numbers:
From the election in UP in 98:
Voting in UP was according to caste and religious lines. The BJP won 9 per cent of Muslim support.
From the 98 National Election:
Another problem for the BJP remains its social base. While the party has more support than the Congress among Hindus, urban voters and the upper castes, it lags behind the Congress in the rural and lower-caste
segments. Only six per cent of the Muslims support it. If voter turnout is high on election day, the BJP could find that its phenomenal growth is still not good enough for victory.
[i]The only two leaders of any consequence are Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Shahnawaz Hussain and enjoy absolutely no support amongst the Muslim community of India[/i]
You wish..
Shahnawaz Hussain, won the Bhagalpur by-poll for the BJP very recently defeating RJD and 13 other candidates
AMFD
9 percent is quite a substantial number for a Saffron party, one can wager it was much below that some years ago. Further the stats prove the BJP remains a favorite with the middle classes and the literate, and quite contrary to the dirges sung and obituaries read the BJP is set to regain power if the UPA were to fall. The MP, Bihar, UP by polls were not just won but swept. So Afzal supporters' - party's coming to an end!
Amardeep mentioned about indians being model minority. May be muslims in india behave like indians in USA (also, hindus in india should behave like whites in USA).
In case any one is still trawling thru the comments - here's my 2 nickels.
For the record I live in India and a rather indifferent Hindu. I do believe in the basis of my faith and I like the fact that my being faithful does not obligate me to go to any extreme.
Anyway - I read Farooqui's piece with interest. Here's my poser:
He was a normal 'hinduized-indian-muslim'. Obviously he thought that there was a lot of good in what he thought and believed.
If his stance has changed now, I for one would be interested in what has essentially changed.
Was it that he saw parts of India/Indians that he had not known earlier and hence the tilt to the other side? Was it that he discovered that the Ramayana and the other tome Mahabharata subtly demonized Muslims (joke)? Just what was it? If his belief was that all that is good comes from a syncretic Indian milieu I would say it was an extremely loosely held belief that a few riots and anti Muslim rhetoric has caused him to lose it?
If he thought earlier that the vast majority of Indians were peacful and secular, there was evidence that this was indeed so post Gujrat.
My only point is this. Oh and this goes to all those who say 'policies are driving Muslims into terrorists hands'. Hogwash I say.
Either you have strong beliefs that are based on sound judgements or your beliefs are not worth anything at all.
I dont mean to say that people should not change their beliefs, but to swing from one extreme to the other...is a bit much to stomach.
It's actually just another more sophisticated way of playing the victim card, thats all.
Stop perscuting us with this kind of article or you will push more Hindu faces into the saffron balls!
Stop criticisng us. Articles that try to show we are not moderate are genocidal.
Hail Mogambo!
http://www.hindu.com/elections2004/verdict2004/stories/2004052000310700.htm
Al Mujahid, In the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, BJP+ receieved about 11% of the Muslim vote nationwide, but there are great regional variations within that total - check out the link I provided. The NDA (BJP plus partners) beat the UPA (Congress plus partners) in both the so-called forward vote, and in the so called OBC vote (for the first time). They dramatically caught up with the UPA among tribals (which demonstrates their humanitarian efforts are working). The two places they do not do well are among Muslims and Scheduled Castes.
Risible: That 11% vote is the figure for BJP plus allies. So we dont really know what percentage of votes was for the allies and what percentage was for the BJP by itself.
I cant find any numbers on the internet but I would be really surprised if a Non-Muslim BJP candidate could pull more than 2-3% of the Muslim vote. Muslims almost vote as a block against the party which is in the best position to beat the BJP. That of course might change as new alliances emerge.
Playing a victim card nothing else. Is this the ONLY type of discrimination? In Mumbai there are societies after societies which are Only Gujju, Only Marathi, Only Parsi, Only Christian and OFCOURSE Only Muslim. And why do we forget that there are manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy places where everybody stays amicably. Ditto for rest of the cities.
I hate these cry babies. I am sick of it.
If only people consider the atrocities towards the minorities in Muslim majority countires and areas witin India one will have to admit that Muslims are having a very good stay. It is their home too as much as anybody elses.
Wonder if Muslims will be happy even after Islamizing the whole world also. Then other issues such as race and ethnicity will be reason for differences, fights and killings. people will try to impose there brand of Islam and so on...am sick of it all...why are muslims like this???????????
Lazyboy,
I don't see any point in Farooqui's comments where he suggests he's turning towards extremism.
I speak from a completely "ABD" perspective here, so perhaps I'm missing something fundamental. But his experience does not sound dissimilar from that of many American Desis following the 9/11 attacks. Many minorities grow up believing that there is a fairly well-defined path to acceptance and success in a society. If you buy into the myths and ideologies of the majority, perhaps that majority will accept you. Perhaps you can overcome historical attitudes towards people like you (whether based on religion or race). But if this path does not provide the integration that it promised, I think it's natural to feel confused and shaken. If acceptance is not possible among the majority, it's natural to seek out community within your minority identity. But, to his credit, Farooqui remains very wary of the drawbacks of that option, especially as an atheist.
It may not be enough that "most" Indian Hindus are tolerant and peaceful. A vocal enough minority opinion can be a very frightening thing -- particularly if it's a vocal minority that holds a non-neglible amount of political influence. I know that I became much more interested in ethnic identity and community after members of the American Right began calling for ethnic profiling and indefinite detention. Sometimes, the fact that other people care about your identity (whether racial or religious) means a lot more than whether or not you do.
Ya, and in country like India everyone is a minority in some way or the other. Brahmins are minority, gay are minority, sikh, jain, parsis, jews, vegetarians, hindus in kashmir and parts of NE, working women, OBC doctors, physically challenged ..........
Now should we all start like cry babies for this reason or that...
1. As for the BJP+ garnering 11% Muslim votes in the 2004 Elections to the Lok Sabha as reported in the Hindu Big Picture, reads a bit like Yudhishthirs rather desperate lie within the hearing distance of Dronacharya on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Said he, Ashwaththama is dead the elephant. The Hindus Big Picture unambiguously states:
The Congress gets the highest share of votes among the Muslims as well. But at 47 per cent, this is much lower than what the party would have liked or hoped for. The biggest challenger of the Congress for the Muslim votes is of course the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh and the Left in West Bengal. Notwithstanding much hype about BJP making effort to secure Muslim votes, there is very little evidence to show any gains for the NDA. Its share of 11 per cent among the Muslims is actually about four points less than what the BJP and allies secured last time.
Now how much of this 11% is BJPs and how much JDUs (then Samta Party) is clear to those who know the virulent communal character of the BJP. Only the forces of right reaction permanently parked before the saffron mirror keep endlessly deluding themselves about the growing influence of the BJP amongst the Muslim minority of India.
2. As for Shahnawazs recent victory in the Bhagalpur by-election to the Lok Sabha, it is true that he has won by 55,611 votes defeating his nearest rival Shakuni Chaudhary who could get only 165390 votes as against Shahnawazs 221001. But this was a victory against a terribly divided opposition. CPI candidate Subodh Roy, supported by LJP and the NCP, took away a substantial chunk of 79363 votes. The combined vote of the UPA is 244753 which is still 23752 votes ahead of the NDA total.
It mustnt be forgotten that the same Shahnawaz lost the 2004 Elections by a whopping 160530 votes margin.
The 2nd para in my last post viz:
should be within inverted commas. It is a quote from The Hindu.
And yet there's not a large gay Brahmin nation next door to stir up sentiment. Unless I'm more ignorant than I thought (and again, this is possible, being American-born & raised), perennial anti-Parsi riots don't rock Indian cities. Millions of people weren't displaced on the creation of "Working Women-stan".
Don't get me wrong, I know some politicians exploit these identity tensions and create a sense of affront for purely political gain. But that's part of what Farooqui is reacting to. Reading his post on Kafila, it seems clear that he feels that it's impossible to live independent of faith. Because of his name, his family, and his non-religious customs (eg: sitting out Holi, Diwali, etc...), he can't just be "Mahmood Farooqui, random dude", he will always be "Mahmood Farooqui, Muslim". As a "Muslim atheist", he is always called upon to renounce the religion of Islam, yet he continues to encounter the unequal treatment deriving from religion. At the same time, he cannot truly find community in his ethnic community, since he is an atheist. He is trapped in the middle. Make of that what you will, but it's certainly an interesting quandry. I think these lines from his concluding paragraph summarize it best:
It's an interesting problem, if nothing else.
Thanks for the analysis Panini. I dont know anything about this clown Shahnawaz and what he stands for. Over history, there have always been useful idiots for any ideological movement.
Yes, that is the character on which they grew in numbers (it only manifested after decades of trying to gain popularity on other characteristics), but that character can be changed by the people. The other important characteristics of the BJP are pro-growth, pro-